Elena Kagan to be nominated for supreme court

[mudwhistle]

Not necessarily, but since she has committed actions against our military while we are at war she belongs in Gitmo not on the bench.

You are insane

None of the 3 of you should be allowed to vote.

If I told you what I do for a living, you would shit your pants.

Send me a PM...I promise to wipe afterwards.

 

[saveliberty]

"Her statement at her 2009 confirmation hearing that the president could detain enemy combatants without trial will make liberals very nervous. Kagan's refusal to find a right to same sex-marriage in the Constitution may provide some small comfort to conservatives."

Why Elena Kagan makes both sides nervous. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

She ain't no Stevens.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Her statement at her 2009 confirmation hearing that the president could detain enemy combatants without trial will make liberals very nervous. Kagan's refusal to find a right to same sex-marriage in the Constitution may provide some small comfort to conservatives."

Why Elena Kagan makes both sides nervous. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

She ain't no Stevens.

No she isn't. But you do a good Dan Quale.

 

[saveliberty]

"Her statement at her 2009 confirmation hearing that the president could detain enemy combatants without trial will make liberals very nervous. Kagan's refusal to find a right to same sex-marriage in the Constitution may provide some small comfort to conservatives."

Why Elena Kagan makes both sides nervous. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

She ain't no Stevens.

No she isn't. But you do a good Dan Quale.

Not really. Q-u-a-y-l-e and P-o-t-a-t-o. See?

 

[Cal]

I personally wish President Obama would have nominated someone more clearer on their stances, and more to the left. However, realistically it was a good pick..Seeing the last thing we need is a long confirmation process, with all of the critical issues that need to be tackled.

 

[saveliberty]

I personally wish President Obama would have nominated someone more clearer on their stances, and more to the left. However, realistically it was a good pick..Seeing the last thing we need is a long confirmation process, with all of the critical issues that need to be tackled.

So speed out weighs their position on critical issues? If I was a liberal working at Harvard, I'd scream liberal leanings every chance I got. Yet Kagan was largely silent. Closet conservative keeping it close to the vest?

 

[Dante]

"Her statement at her 2009 confirmation hearing that the president could detain enemy combatants without trial will make liberals very nervous. Kagan's refusal to find a right to same sex-marriage in the Constitution may provide some small comfort to conservatives."

Why Elena Kagan makes both sides nervous. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

She ain't no Stevens.

she's qualified. that's what counts.

 

[saveliberty]

I think certifiable was the word you were looking for. Please list the "qualifications". I'll catch the first couple for you.

1. Breathing humaniod-like being.
2. Moves under her own power.
3. Reacts to stimuli.

 

[Dante]

I think certifiable was the word you were looking for. Please list the "qualifications". I'll catch the first couple for you.

1. Breathing humaniod-like being.
2. Moves under her own power.
3. Reacts to stimuli.

she makes leftie loons see red and right wing kooks see blood. she is qualified.

 

[DiamondDave]

Not necessarily, but since she has committed actions against our military while we are at war she belongs in Gitmo not on the bench.

You are insane

None of the 3 of you should be allowed to vote.

If I told you what I do for a living, you would shit your pants.

Most people do have a shocked reaction to those actors in the gay Amish midget porn industry

 

[DavidS]

Its what they do to women who are on the left.

Note the women they love in the republican party, they all have to look good.

They don't have to look good they just have to behave like women.

And how, exactly should a woman behave? Should she knowingly distort facts and half-truths like Sarah Palin does on a regular basis?

 

[GHook93]

Its what they do to women who are on the left.

Note the women they love in the republican party, they all have to look good.

They don't have to look good they just have to behave like women.

And how, exactly should a woman behave? Should she knowingly distort facts and half-truths like Sarah Palin does on a regular basis?

PLEASE!!! Look at the AZ immigration bill, liberals do it better than ever. A few examples:
(1) Latino will need to care their birth certificates! - Nope a drivers license, State ID or GREEN CARD will suffice. Something I believe all America and legal aliens must carry.
(2) Illegals do jobs Americans don't want to do! Please, I see culinary schools with whites, blacks and legal Latinos! 30% of illegals work in the construction business! I think the Irish would dispute that.
(3) Illegals don't increase crime! PHX is the kidnap capital of the world. The border is a war zone. PLEASSE!
(4) Illegal immigration isn't a crime. Uh yes it is!
(5) This law is worse than the rest of the world! Uh no, Mexico's immigration laws are 1000x more racist and discriminatory than anything we could think of. AZ law is not!

 

[DavidS]

They don't have to look good they just have to behave like women.

And how, exactly should a woman behave? Should she knowingly distort facts and half-truths like Sarah Palin does on a regular basis?

PLEASE!!! Look at the AZ immigration bill, liberals do it better than ever. A few examples:
(1) Latino will need to care their birth certificates! - Nope a drivers license, State ID or GREEN CARD will suffice. Something I believe all America and legal aliens must carry.
(2) Illegals do jobs Americans don't want to do! Please, I see culinary schools with whites, blacks and legal Latinos! 30% of illegals work in the construction business! I think the Irish would dispute that.
(3) Illegals don't increase crime! PHX is the kidnap capital of the world. The border is a war zone. PLEASSE!
(4) Illegal immigration isn't a crime. Uh yes it is!
(5) This law is worse than the rest of the world! Uh no, Mexico's immigration laws are 1000x more racist and discriminatory than anything we could think of. AZ law is not!

Are you having fun talking to yourself because I read DailyKos and the HuffPost daily and I've never heard any of those points made from Liberals.

 

[Stephanie]

Its what they do to women who are on the left.

Note the women they love in the republican party, they all have to look good.

They don't have to look good they just have to behave like women.

And how, exactly should a woman behave? Should she knowingly distort facts and half-truths like Sarah Palin does on a regular basis?

OMG, just had to get a dig in there at Palin. couldn't find anyone on the left I guess, like Nancy Pelosi. now there is a "truth to power" woman if there ever was one.

 

[Father Time]

(3) Illegals don't increase crime! PHX is the kidnap capital of the world. The border is a war zone. PLEASSE!

Sources?

 

[saveliberty]

(3) Illegals don't increase crime! PHX is the kidnap capital of the world. The border is a war zone. PLEASSE!

Sources?

In what officials caution is now a dangerous and even deadly crime wave, Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City and over 370 cases last year alone.

Kidnapping Capital of the U.S.A. - ABC News

One place off. He was a lot closer than you thought huh?

 

[Gatekeeper]

Yup, Give us your poor your needy, your criminals and drug dealers, your kidnappers and home invasion professionals, come on in, the USA has millions who seem to be opposed to enforcing legal immigration. Take our country while we sit by and do nothing.

All of you nitwits that are opposed to actually enforcing the immigration policies of the USA, and if the Feds can't so it the states WILL, well, you can KMA. We have enough crazies that are homegrown, much less allowing them cross the borders and into our towns and homes.

my feelings:
EVERYONE,not a criminal, IS WELCOME----LEGALLY

Wait a minute, this thread is about Elena Kagan being nominated to the Supreme Court, WTF?

Not to worry folks, whatever Obama and his mischief makers want, WE get, doesn't make any difference who likes it, or doesn't like it. They rammed Health Care reform down our throats so this, like Sotomayor, is a piece of cake. I cannot make a comment about Kagan as most of you cannot either, until we do more research on our own about her.

 

[DiamondDave]

It is not a flawed question... you have asserted that the judiciary has the power granted to grant itself constitutional powers. <Snip>

No, I did not. Perfect your question first, otherwise you continue to default.

Yes.. you did...

You have asserted that the power to "make sure the American Dream prospers" exists for the judiciary
I have shown that the constitution is where the branches of our federal government derive their power
I have also shown that nowhere within the constitution, does your power exist in any text
You have asserted via your opposition, that they have that power (to make sure the American dream prospers) due to precedent in Marbury v Madison wherein they gave themselves to power to give themselves power without the amendment process
I have shown that nowhere in the findings, that I have read over an over, does Marbury v Madison grant the power to grant powers to the judiciary
I have stated my assertion and opinion that judicial review and declaring something unconstitutional, is not the same as adding a constitutional power or saying that a power is granted

Now... again.. please state where the judiciary has the power to "make sure the American Dream prospers".... and please, if this power is not found in the constitution, cite where this power is derived from... state it for the record, jokey.. instead of beating around the bush... cover your whole list of assertions, in order

oh... and while you are at it.. please show us these "human guarantees" within the constitution, that you say exist

Bump

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, I did not. Perfect your question first, otherwise you continue to default.

<snip> because you try to rewrite what I wrote; go back and check, huh?

Bump

Show where the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction in interpreting the Constitution? The SCOTUS is the protector of the American dream. You don't like that, move to Iran, or keep whining. Same Same.

In other words, you don't get to reframe the original point.

 

[jillian]

No, I did not. Perfect your question first, otherwise you continue to default.

Yes.. you did...

You have asserted that the power to "make sure the American Dream prospers" exists for the judiciary
I have shown that the constitution is where the branches of our federal government derive their power
I have also shown that nowhere within the constitution, does your power exist in any text
You have asserted via your opposition, that they have that power (to make sure the American dream prospers) due to precedent in Marbury v Madison wherein they gave themselves to power to give themselves power without the amendment process
I have shown that nowhere in the findings, that I have read over an over, does Marbury v Madison grant the power to grant powers to the judiciary
I have stated my assertion and opinion that judicial review and declaring something unconstitutional, is not the same as adding a constitutional power or saying that a power is granted

Now... again.. please state where the judiciary has the power to "make sure the American Dream prospers".... and please, if this power is not found in the constitution, cite where this power is derived from... state it for the record, jokey.. instead of beating around the bush... cover your whole list of assertions, in order

oh... and while you are at it.. please show us these "human guarantees" within the constitution, that you say exist

Bump

did you bother reading marbury?

without judicial review, there isn't anything to make sure that the legislative and executive branches act within constitutional boundaries.

THAT is how the constitution works... courts look at what EFFECTUATES ITS INTENT... there is no BS about 'originalism' or some retarded fundie version of the constitution. Do you really think anyone was stupid enough to require an amendment every time a question as to constitutionality arose?